INCOSE (MBSE) Model Based System Engineering (SoS) System of Systems Activity Introduction Ron Williamson, Ph.D. Raytheon ron.williamson@incose.org Jan 30-31, 2011 INCOSE IW11 MBSE Workshop MBSE Wiki page: http://www.omgwiki.org/mbse MBSE SoS/Enterprise Modeling Wiki page: http://www.omgwiki.org/MBSE/doku.php?id=mbse:enterprise

Outline Introduction Conceptual Model Summary for SoS Concept Representations Languages Frameworks Patterns MBSE SoS Challenges Systems Language Models for SoS SysML (System Modeling Language) Architecture Framework (AF) Models for SoS UPDM (UML(Unified Modeling Language) Profile for DoDAF/MODAF MBSE SoS Case Studies Architecture Eco-System Efforts UPDM and DoDAF 2.0 DM2 UPDM and SysML, SoaML, BPMN, BMM, etc. Conclusions / Recommendations References and Related Initiatives Questions…

Introduction MBSE System of Systems System of Systems (SoS)…one of many definitions/characterizations A class of problems that have unique characteristics, distinguishing them for “classic” systems. For example, unbounded context and usage, potentially emergent behaviors, large number of complex interactions, costly to fully verify and validate a priori,… These unique characteristics have lead the SE and Architecting community to investigate new languages and frameworks to help better define these key SoS characteristics SoS Engineering Best Practices in Analysis, Architecture, Design, Development, Integration, Testing, Deployment and Maintenance Modeling is increasingly critical to understanding, managing and validating SoS modeling (e.g. SysML, MARTE, Modelica, eXtend, SimuLink, …) SoS Architecting Architecture Frameworks (DoDAF, MODAF, FEAF, Zachman, TOGAF,….) Model Based Frameworks (e.g. UPDM - Unified Profile for DoDAF/MODAF)

Introduction SoS Engineering Key Concepts Legacy Systems Dynamic Reconfiguration of Architecture Service Oriented Architecture Enabler Protocols and Standards to Enable Interoperable Systems Added “ilities” or Quality Attributes Federated Acquisition Independent Systems Concept of Operations Critical Ongoing Experimentation Converging Spirals SoS Modeling Implications  Saunders, T. et al, “United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Report on System-of-Systems Engineering for Air Force Capability Development,” SAB-TR-05-04, July 2005

Introduction …SoS MBSE Implications Legacy Systems  Models for behavior, interfaces, requirements, performance, e.g. SysML, Modelica, MARTE Dynamic Reconfiguration of Architecture Dynamic Reconfigurable models of architecture, e.g. UPDM with UML/SysML model version management Service Oriented Architecture Enabler SOA modeling language, e.g. SoaML, SOA Patterns Protocols and Standards to Enable Interoperable Systems Models for protocols, standards, interoperability, e.g. UPDM, DoDAF 2 MetaModel Added “ilities” or Quality Attributes Specialty Engineering models, e.g assurance Federated Acquisition Models for acquisition project synergy, e.g. UPDM, MODAF, DoDAF 2 MetaModel Independent Systems Models for independence in system functionality, e.g. Agent Based, federated models Concept of Operations Critical Models for CONOPs including Mission, Objectives, Courses of Action, etc. e.g. UPDM Operational Viewpoint, BPMN Business Processes Ongoing Experimentation Analysis of Alternatives models for all viewpoints and model versioning

MBSE SoS Conceptual Model (partial) specifies View Viewpoint provides perspective on representation of SoS Arch Desc described by Stakeholder member of Enterprise Multiplicity default: 0..* defines visions for enterprise Architecture has Policy Constrains Vision SoS contributes to vision goals of vision realized as Information Domain Capability Goal represents abstract exchanges requires fulfills capability fulfills goal Node realized as Configuration employs Mission includes performs Function Standard accomplish realizes Asset deployed to Resource Activity standardizes Performed by composed of Hosted on has conducts Technology Competence System Node Interaction of from to carries requires SoS Connection Role standardizes carries Data

Some MBSE SoS Challenges Core Concepts have a wide range of interpretations and definitions across modeling languages Duality: System of Systems and Model of Models OMG Initiative: “Ecosystem” of Languages/Models Methodology / Discipline differences expand into SoS Engineering Object Oriented vs Structured/Functional Enterprise vs SoS vs System Business vs Engineering Models (BPMN vs UML vs SoaML vs SysML) Enterprise, Business and Technical Architecture Models (pick your favorite Architecture Frameworks) Example Concepts with several interpretations Capability Function Activity Requirement View Viewpoint Example Languages with overlap BPMN and UML (SysML, UPDM) UML/BPMN Integration Straw Poll (source OMG) They remain separate standards 3 BPMN is a UML profile with notation 6 Create a unified model encompassing both 13 Semantic models with UML and BPMN viewpoints 9 BPMN replaces UML activity diagrams 4 BPMN grows to make UML not required BPMN and UML are separate models, mapped with QVT 2 There are ways to make links between them

Systems Language Models for SoS SysML Core Concepts Structure, Behavior, Requirements, Parametrics View, Viewpoint, Block, Part, Role, Connector, Interface, Item, ItemFlow, Activity, State, Transition, Requirement, Constraint Block,… SoS Core Concepts View, Viewpoint, Enterprise, Mission, Projects, Milestone, Vision, Goal, Policy, Capability, Node, Configuration, Resource, System, Information, Data, Technology, Standard, Organization, Task, Activity, Measures of Effectiveness, Key Performance Parameters, “ilities”, Scenario, Workflow… SysML/SoS Mapping Example (one of several approaches) Structure (Block,…) Enterprise, Capability, Configuration, Resource, Systems, Information, Data, Technology, Organization, Milestone, Vision, Goal, Node, … Behavior (Activity, State,…) Function, Task, Activity, Scenario, Workflow, Requirement Policy, Constraint, Standard,… Parametrics MoE’s, KPP’s, “ilities”… See UPDM and DoDAF Meta model References for mapping standards efforts

Architecture Framework (AF) Models for SoS Zachman Framework Perspectives, Interrogatives, Checklist TOGAF 9 (The Open Group AF) Architecture Development Model FEAF (Federal Enterprise AF) Reference Models (Business, Technical, Information, …) DoDAF 2 / MODAF / NATO AF /… Viewpoints, Products for Capability, Operational, System, Service, Technology Standards, Information, … Views …and many additional variants of various combinations of the above frameworks

MBSE SoS Case Studies Architecture Eco-System Efforts Special Interest Group at OMG Co-Chairs: Jim Amsden (IBM) Cory Casanave (Model Driven Solutions) UPDM and DoDAF 2.0 UPDM 1.0 official OMG standard Co-Chairs Jim Rice, NoMagic Graham Bleakley, IBM Matthew Hause, Atego (aka Artisan Software+Aonix) DoD Walt Okon, OSD Len Levine, DISA

Architecture Eco-System Efforts The set of architectural languages defined in the ecosystem should, together, create a complete architectural environment Advantages of unified tools – integrated Without the coupling of monolithic tools Full life-cycle Integrating the same information about the same enterprise from multiple viewpoints Well defined meaning Flexible for extension and new viewpoints Models as data – repurpose, query, mash-up The goal of the architectural ecosystem is to figure out how to do this – to architect our architectures Identify real or perceived problems and find solutions

Architecture Eco-System Efforts Current Integrated Modeling Efforts DoDAF DM2 FEA/FSAM Proprietary tool models BPDM & IMM Nasa NExIOM (Proposed) Business Modeling Framework Unified Process Model (NIST) Others….

UPDM and DoDAF 2.0 UPDM: Four+ year effort to standardize DoDAF 1.5 architecture description models using UML and SysML UPDM 1.0 Official OMG standard in 2009 UPDM 2.0 RFP issued late 2009 to extend to DoDAF 2.0, MODAF, NAF, etc. updates At least one team responding and coordinating with DoD sponsored DoDAF 2.0 Meta Modeling efforts

DoDAF 2.0 Viewpoints

DoDAF 2 Metamodel Summary Ontology Capturing fundamental semantics (Meaning) and relationships among key concepts Models Provide “choices” based on decision maker needs Fit for Purpose Describes an architecture that is appropriately focused and directly supports customer needs

UPDM Summary

UPDM Summary (cont.) Viewpoints and Concept Stereotypes All Views (Metadata, MeasurementSet, Definition,…) Strategic Capability (EnterprisePhase, Vision, Goal, Mission, Capability,…) Operational (Node, Role, Needline, Activity, State, Organization, Competence, Information, Rule, Policy…) System (CapabilityConfiguration, Resource, System, Data, SystemFunction, …) Service-Oriented (Service, ServiceInterface,…) Acquisition (Project, Milestone,…) Tech Standard (Standard, Protocol,…) Source: MODAF Overview, Version 1.0, 2005

References for some MBSE SoS Related Initiatives OMG’s Architecture Ecosystem Special Interest Group http://www.omgwiki.org/architecture-ecosystem/doku.php OMG’s Unified Profile for DoDAF/MODAF 2.0 http://www.updm.com DoD’s DoDAF 2.0 Meta Modeling efforts http://cio-nii.defense.gov/sites/dodaf20/DM2.html IDEAS Group (US, UK, Canada,Sweden) http://www.ideasgroup.org/ OMG’s SysML http://omgsysml.org/